Document No.

GP 06-40
Applicability Group
Date 15 February 2007

Guidance on Practice for

Pipeline Coating Selection

GP 06-40

BP GROUP
ENGINEERING TECHNICAL PRACTICES
15 February 2007 GP 06-40
Guidance on Practice for Pipeline Coating Selection

Foreword

This is the first issue of Engineering Technical Practice (ETP) BP GP 06-40. This Guidance on
Practice (GP) is based on parts of heritage documents from the merged BP companies as follows:

Amoco
A CP-COAT-00-E Corrosion Protection—Coatings—General—Selection Specification.
A CP-COAT-00-G Corrosion Protection—Coatings—General—Guide.

ARCO
ES 503 Coatings for Buried Steel Piping.

Copyright © 2007, BP Group. All rights reserved. The information contained in this
document is subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement or contract under which
the document was supplied to the recipient’s organization. None of the information
contained in this document shall be disclosed outside the recipient’s own organization
without the prior written permission of BP Group, unless the terms of such agreement or
contract expressly allow.

Page 2 of 17
15 February 2007 GP 06-40
Guidance on Practice for Pipeline Coating Selection

Table of Contents
Page
Foreword ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Scope .................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Normative references............................................................................................................. 5
3. Symbols and abbreviations .................................................................................................... 5
4. Surface cleanliness and surface preparation ......................................................................... 5
5. Pipeline coating systems selection......................................................................................... 6
6. Line pipe coatings.................................................................................................................. 6
6.1. General....................................................................................................................... 6
6.2. Health and safety considerations ................................................................................ 6
6.3. Resistance to mechanical damage ............................................................................. 6
6.4. Resistance to the operating environment .................................................................... 8
6.5. Compatibility with cathodic protection ......................................................................... 8
6.6. Coating selection ........................................................................................................ 9
7. Field joint coatings ................................................................................................................. 9
7.1. General considerations ............................................................................................... 9
7.2. Coal tar and asphalt enamels ..................................................................................... 9
7.3. Cold applied tape coatings........................................................................................ 10
7.4. Fusion bonded epoxy powder ................................................................................... 10
7.5. Liquid applied coatings ............................................................................................. 10
7.6. Heat shrink sleeves................................................................................................... 11
7.7. Polyolefin coated line pipe ........................................................................................ 11
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 17

List of Tables

Table 1 - Comparison of line pipe coating properties .................................................................... 13

Table 2 - Field joint coating options............................................................................................... 14
Table 3 - Comparison of field joint coating properties.................................................................... 15

Page 3 of 17
15 February 2007 GP 06-40
Guidance on Practice for Pipeline Coating Selection

Introduction

This Guidance for Practice covers the selection of external line pipe and compatible field joint
coatings for new pipelines both onshore and offshore. Coating options for the refurbishment of
coatings on onshore pipelines are more limited and are covered by GIS 06-405. For the purposes of
this document the term “line pipe” refers to sections of manufactured pipe normally 12 metres
(40 feet) in length and usually prepared and externally coated under factory conditions, except for the
“cutback” at either end. The coating is stopped short of the pipe ends to facilitate butt welding of
adjacent sections of line pipe together without causing coating damage to the line pipe coating. The
“field joint” encompasses the butt weld, the cutback area and an area of overlap onto the line pipe
coating.

The guidance provided is based upon the experience of BP and other major pipeline operators plus
information gathered from a number of documented sources. These documents include; independent
test reports, national and international standards, published papers, coating manufacturers’ published
data, and private communications.

A significant amount of the guidance provided in this document is based upon the results from
laboratory tests, either directly in accordance with, industry, national, and international standards or
slight modifications to them to more accurately represent the conditions experienced in practice. It
should be borne in mind that the range of external pipeline coatings that are commercially available
covers a number of diverse generic types. As many of the test methods are not universally applicable
to every available pipeline coating system, the comparative assessments based on the results of these
tests alone are subjective. The most reliable testament to satisfactory performance can only be
provided by investigation under the specific conditions to be encountered in practice. Such testing
and/or the accumulation of reliable on site performance data is expensive and time consuming and has
been very limited to date.

It is the responsibility of the reader to ensure that the information used is relevant to his or her specific
requirements.

Page 4 of 17
15 February 2007 GP 06-40
Guidance on Practice for Pipeline Coating Selection

1. Scope

a. This GP provides guidance for the selection of shop applied and field applied external
flowline and pipeline coatings for new construction, hereafter referred to as pipeline
coatings. The primary purpose is to prevent external corrosion. Coatings which provide
thermal insulation are outside the scope of this document.
b. This document considers the following line pipe coating systems as they are the ones most
widely used throughout BP’s pipeline operations:
1. Coal tar enamel.
2. Asphalt enamel.
3. Cold applied tape wraps.
4. Single layer fusion bonded epoxy.
5. Dual layer fusion bonded epoxy.
6. Two layer polyethylene.
7. Three layer polyethylene.
8. Three layer polypropylene.

2. Normative references

The following normative documents contain requirements that, through reference in this text,
constitute requirements of this technical practice. For dated references, subsequent amendments to, or
revisions of, any of these publications do not apply. However, parties to agreements based on this
technical practice are encouraged to investigate the possibility of applying the most recent editions of
the normative documents indicated below. For undated references, the latest edition of the normative
document referred to applies.

Deutsches Institut Fur Normung E.V. (DIN)

DIN 30670 Polyethylene coatings of steel pipes and fittings; requirements and
testing.
DIN 30678 Polypropylene coatings for steel pipes.

3. Symbols and abbreviations

For the purpose of this GP, the following symbols and abbreviations apply:

C.D. Cathodic disbondment

FBE Fusion bonded epoxy

SCE Standard Calomel Reference Electrode

4. Surface cleanliness and surface preparation

• The importance of surface cleanliness and preparation standard to the long term
performance of a pipeline coating cannot be stressed too highly.
• Poor surface preparation quality resulting from either one, or a combination of
the following: inadequate removal of dirt and grease, inadequate removal of
mill scale and rust, dust contamination, lack of surface profile angularity, etc. is

Page 5 of 17
15 February 2007 GP 06-40
Guidance on Practice for Pipeline Coating Selection

the major cause of premature coating failure. This is true regardless of the
generic coating type selected and the specific conditions under which the
coating is applied.

5. Pipeline coating systems selection

Each pipeline shall be considered on its own individual merits in respect of coating systems selection.

Under normal circumstances, the selection of an external line pipe coating system is
influenced by five principle factors:
• Health and safety.
• Resistance to mechanical damage.
• Resistance to the operating environment and corrosion protection capability,
with specific reference to temperature.
• Compatibility between the line pipe coating, the field joint coating, and the
coating used on the bends and fittings.
• Compatibility of the coating with cathodic protection.
With the exception of health and safety, which is of paramount importance, these
factors are not given in order of priority.

6. Line pipe coatings

6.1. General
The selection of the most appropriate line pipe coating is a first priority to ensure the long term
integrity of the pipeline.
Typically the coating applied to the line pipe protects 98% of the external surface of
the pipeline; the field joint coating protects 2%.

6.2. Health and safety considerations

Coal tar enamel and asphalt coatings should not be used unless exceptional circumstances exist
which mitigate otherwise.
• At one time, coal tar and asphalt enamels were the mainstay of the pipeline
coatings industry. The development of pipeline coatings which are more
environmentally friendly and less hazardous during application has seen a
dramatic reduction in the use of hot applied enamels over the last 10 to
20 years.
• Fumes given off during the heating of coal tar contain polycyclic aromatics
which are known carcinogens. These are also present during the heating of
asphalt enamels, but to a smaller extent.
• Health and safety concerns have led to some countries prohibiting the use of
coating products containing coal tar, while a number of leading paint
manufacturers have eliminated coal tar from their liquid coating formulations.

6.3. Resistance to mechanical damage

a. Many cases of premature coating failure can be ascribed to mechanical damage to the
applied coating system and the coating system either going unrepaired or the repair being
of substandard quality. The figures for “relative resistance to mechanical damage” are
given in Table 1.

Page 6 of 17
15 February 2007 GP 06-40
Guidance on Practice for Pipeline Coating Selection

b. For onshore pipelines, specific consideration shall be given to road, rail, river, and other
types of pipeline crossings where thrust boring and/or directional drilling operations
require the coating to have superior resistance to abrasion and gouging.
• The mechanical damage sustained by the coating on a pipeline can take many
forms. During pipe handling, transportation, and pipeline construction, the pipe
coating can suffer impact damage from momentary heavy contact with foreign
objects and abrasion damage from more prolonged contact and relative
movement against the same.
• If the coated pipe has a tortuous route between the coating plant and the
construction site involving many stages of handling, resistance to impact and
abrasion is a key parameter to consider when selecting the external pipe
coating.
• Experience has shown that coating repairs carried out in the field remain areas
of weakness due to the constraints on coating application quality achievable in
the field compared to the optimum coating application conditions in the factory.
On buried pipelines in particular, these locations are invariably those where
coating breakdown occurs first. In general terms, the extent to which the coating
suffers mechanical damage in service is likely to be much less for subsea
pipelines than for those buried on land. The environment surrounding a subsea
pipeline is likely to change very little with time, and mechanical damage in
service is not normally a significant issue in the absence of unwitting third-party
intervention. By contrast, the coating on an onshore pipeline, buried beneath a
minimum of 1 to 2 metres (3 to 7 ft) of backfill of often dubious quality, can
suffer varying degrees of impact, shear, abrasion, indentation, and penetration
during backfilling. Pipe settlement, cyclic fluid temperatures, and seasonal
changes in the water content of the surrounding soil all conspire to place
additional forces on the coating in service. It is regularly found that areas of
significant external metal loss on existing buried pipelines are associated with
the steel having become exposed to the environment as a direct consequence of
the coating suffering mechanical damage due to contact with the ground.
• The figures for “relative resistance to mechanical damage” given in Table 1 in
the “impact”, “indentation”, and “abrasion” columns, are based upon a
comparative assessment. The value 1 is ascribed to the coating with the lowest
resistance to that form of damage in each case. The figures given for all of the
others reflect the relative amount by which they are more resistant to the specific
damage type. The coating with the highest figure in each column has the
greatest resistance to that form of damage. Both the value 1 (least resistance)
and the highest figure (greatest resistance) in each column are highlighted.
• The impact resistance values are based upon the energy required (Joules per
mm (ft-lb/in) of coating thickness) to impart a holiday in the coating. The test
method used to derive the majority of this data is in accordance with the method
described in ASTM G14 and/or a modified version of this test using angular tups
in addition to the standard hemispherical tup. The coating with the lowest
resistance to impact is single layer FBE (at both 20 and 50°C (68 and 122°F))
with three layer FBE-polypropylene having the highest resistance.
• The values for indentation/ penetration reflect the relative resistance of each
coating to point loading in accordance with DIN 30670, DIN 30678, ASTM G17,
and/or a modified version of ASTM G17 which uses angular indentors. The
values are based upon the physical measurement of the actual depth of the
indentation. Cold applied tapes and coal tar and asphalt enamels are
particularly prone to penetration damage as reflected in the much higher values
ascribed to the alternative coating systems at the same temperatures.

Page 7 of 17
15 February 2007 GP 06-40
Guidance on Practice for Pipeline Coating Selection

• The figures for abrasion resistance are based upon a series of full size tests in
which the effect of reciprocal pipe movement relative to the soil was simulated
[1]. The maximum depth of penetration was assessed by physical measurement.
The greater resistance of fusion bonded epoxies, particularly ruggedised dual-
layer formulations, to this type of damage compared to polyolefins is evident
from a comparison of the figures for the different coating systems.

6.4. Resistance to the operating environment

• Since most of the materials used as protective coatings for pipeline externals are
chemically inert, a major consideration regarding the performance of the
coating system is likely to be the operating temperature and its influence upon
the mechanical properties of the coating. The data in Table 1 clearly shows how
temperature can have a significant effect upon the mechanical properties
(including adhesion) of the external coating, its resistance to the stresses acting
upon it in service, and the likelihood that the coating will be breached within the
required design life.
• While the majority of the line pipe coatings show a gradual decrease in
mechanical integrity with temperature, fusion bonded epoxies also undergo a
step change in physical properties at the glass transition temperature. This
usually involves a significant fall in the adhesion quality and a change in the
coating itself from a rigid to a rubbery material with a much higher tendency for
water uptake. The “standard” range of fusion-bonded epoxies which have been
available for 20 to 30 years have glass transition temperatures between 95 and
110°C (203 and 230°F). In general terms, the maximum operating temperature
of a pipeline which has an external stand alone “standard” FBE coating should
not be higher then 5°C (9°F) below the established glass transition temperature.
• Newer developments have included fusion bonded epoxy coatings with
significantly higher glass transition temperatures (125 to 150°C (257 to 302°F))
and lower application temperatures than the standard range. At this time, there
is insufficient data available on which to base any firm guidance with regard to
the selection of these coatings.
• Notwithstanding the above, three layer fusion bonded epoxy-polypropylene
coatings incorporating certain standard fusion bonded epoxies as the first layer
have shown satisfactory performance at operating temperatures up to 125°C
(257°F)4.

6.5. Compatibility with cathodic protection

a. Most, if not all, pipelines should be protected from external corrosion by a combination of
a protective coating and cathodic protection.
Therefore, an important property of any pipeline coating is its ability to withstand
C.D.
b. The coating adhesion shall be resistant to the elevated pH in the immediate vicinity of any
holiday in the coating and the diffusion of water through the coating film due to the
applied voltage across it.
The elevation in pH is due to the electrochemical reactions taking place at the
cathodically-protected steel surface.
The majority of data that exists concerning the compatibility of line pipe coatings
with cathodic protection has been derived from small scale, short-term laboratory
tests of the type used to verify the quality of factory applied line pipe coatings. There
is a wealth of such data for fusion bonded epoxy and fusion bonded epoxy polyolefin
coatings, which demonstrates that in coating systems with fusion bonded epoxy as

Page 8 of 17
15 February 2007 GP 06-40
Guidance on Practice for Pipeline Coating Selection

the first layer, the coatings are extremely resistant to C.D. at ambient temperatures
if applied in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to correctly
prepared substrates. The resistance to C.D. of the alternative coating systems at any
temperature and fusion bonded epoxy based coatings at elevated temperatures is
less well documented.

6.6. Coating selection

• Table 1 compares the adhesion strength and the resistance to mechanical
damage and C.D. for the line pipe coating systems listed above. In some cases,
this data extends over a range of temperatures. The final column provides
guidance on the maximum operating temperatures for these generic coating
types.
• The values for adhesion strength are minimum values measured during the
production coating of line pipe and/or required by international standards.
Apart from the three layer FBE-polyolefin coatings, there is little documented
quantified information on the effect of substrate temperature upon adhesion
strength that can be used to determine appropriate upper temperature limits.

7. Field joint coatings

7.1. General considerations

a. Table 2 summarizes the field joint coating options available for each generic line pipe
coating system discussed in clause 6 above.
Two major factors influence the selection of the field joint coating; compatibility
with the line pipe coating and the service conditions. Adequate performance of both
the line pipe and field joint coating is needed the projected life of the pipeline
(usually 30 years minimum).
b. The method of application shall be conducive to the environmental conditions and the rate
at which the pipeline is laid.
While historically the simplicity of the field joint coating application procedure has
been paramount, in recent years tremendous strides have been made in the
development of on-site, automated coating application equipment by field joint
coating contractors. When operated and maintained correctly, this equipment
ensures consistency of field joint coating quality while optimizing the production
rate.
c. Table 3 gives a comparison of the properties of the field joint coatings reviewed in this
clause.
The same comments made in clause 6.6 in respect of Table 2 are also applicable
with respect to Table 3, with one exception. In Table 3, the comparative rankings for
Indentation and Penetration are given in 2 separate columns. The “Indentation”
column rankings are based upon standard test methods described in DIN 30670,
DIN 30678, or ASTM G17. The “Penetration” column rankings are based on a
modified version of ASTM G17, in which angular indentors were used and which
more closely represent the conditions experienced in practice on a buried pipeline.

7.2. Coal tar and asphalt enamels

The early “over the ditch” methods of applying asphalt and coal tar enamel
coatings meant that field joints were not in themselves a specific concern, as the
coating could be applied in a continuous manner along the pipeline way leave. It
was only when these materials began to be applied to individual lengths of pipe
under factory conditions that field joints became a subject of specific attention. At

Page 9 of 17
15 February 2007 GP 06-40
Guidance on Practice for Pipeline Coating Selection

first, the field joints were coated in an analogous manner to the line pipe; that is,
using hot enamel and fabric reinforcement applied as a full circumferential wrap or
“granny ragging,” as it was commonly known. This procedure, which has
significant health, safety, and environmental risks, has been largely superseded over
the last 30 years by the application of cold applied tapes, two component liquid
applied coal tar epoxy, or coal tar urethane, or radiation cross linked polyethylene
(HSS PE) shrink sleeves.

7.3. Cold applied tape coatings

• By the very nature of their composition and temperature limitations, the only
viable field joint coating option on line pipe coated with cold applied tape wrap
is to use an identical material to the line pipe coating at the field joints.
• Due to the thermoplastic nature of cold applied tape wraps, the terminations
adjacent to the field joint are easily damaged by pre-heating and post-heating
operations.
• Cold applied tapes are regarded as the simplest coatings to apply at field joints,
as less skill is required compared to the alternatives available. Nevertheless,
there are a minimum number of application parameters that need to be satisfied
during their application, if they are to provide external corrosion protection
over a reasonable time frame. Due to their comparatively poor resistance to soil
stressing particularly at elevated temperatures (> 40°C (> 104°F)), their use
should be limited to smaller diameter pipelines (< 18 in), pipelines conveying
non-hazardous products, and ambient operating temperatures.

7.4. Fusion bonded epoxy powder

• One of the major advantages of fusion bonded epoxy powder coatings is that
they can be applied to line pipe, bends and fittings, and field joints, alike. This
enables just one coating system to be specified for the entire pipeline,
eliminating problems with the selection of the external coating at field joints in
situations in which two generically different coatings may have otherwise been
applied to the parent pipe on either side of the field joint. However, as stand-
alone field joint coatings, they are not compatible with any line pipe coating
other than fusion bonded epoxy.
• Unlike coal tar and asphalt enamel coatings and cold applied tapes, the
application of FBE coatings in the field requires sophisticated equipment in the
form of induction heating coils, fluidized beds, and flock spraying equipment. A
satisfactory long-term coating performance is reliant upon a high quality of
surface preparation and a rigid adherence to established coating application
procedures in the field.

7.5. Liquid applied coatings

To combat extreme weather conditions, liquid polyurethane and epoxy field joint
coatings normally comprise 100% solids materials applied at elevated temperatures
by “mix at the gun” hot twin airless spray equipment, often with pipe pre-heat and
sometimes post-heat to accelerate the curing rate even further. Induction heating is
the preferred method for both pre- and post-heating for optimum control and
reproducibility of the heat profile. As with fusion bonded epoxy coatings, the
performance of liquid applied coating systems at field joints is reliant upon a high
quality of surface preparation and adherence to established coating application
procedures.

Page 10 of 17
15 February 2007 GP 06-40
Guidance on Practice for Pipeline Coating Selection

7.6. Heat shrink sleeves

• Radiation cross linked heat shrink sleeves require pre-heating of the field joint
followed by post-heating after fit up of the sleeve to shrink the sleeve down to fit
snugly on the pipe. The traditional method of heat application is by manually
operated open flame torch. Apart from inherent health and safety risks, this
method results in a non-uniform heat input across the field joint. This non-
uniform heating pattern produces differential shrinkage rates across the field
joint, leading to wrinkling and blistering of the sleeve and widely differing
qualities of adhesion. In cases of extreme heat input, the sleeve may char and/or
the adjacent line pipe coating may be damaged due to overheating. A significant
improvement in the heating pattern and consistency of adhesion can be achieved
by using induction heating in place of open flame torches to apply the preheat.
• Polypropylene shrink sleeves provide a step change in the quality of the
adhesion that can be achieved to both steel and polypropylene line pipe coatings
and resistance to mechanical damage compared to their polyethylene based
counterparts. In order to fully realize the capabilities of polypropylene heat
shrink sleeves, induction heating is required to provide uniform pre-heat to the
pipe. As these field joint coatings are a comparatively recent development, track
records are limited to date.

7.7. Polyolefin coated line pipe

7.7.1. General
• The generic coatings listed above have limited adhesion to polyethylene and
abrasive blast cleaning or mechanical roughening of the surface of the
polyethylene is a minimal requirement in order to attain a measure of adhesion
in the case of liquid applied coatings, cold applied tapes, and heat shrink
sleeves. With cold applied tapes and radiation cross linked polyethylene heat
shrink sleeves; this is offset to a small extent at ambient temperatures by the
rigidity of the plastic backing. There is some evidence that the adhesion level
between the field joint coating and the polyethylene can be optimized by
judicious selection of the type and particle size distribution of the abrasive, but
this has not been reliably documented.
• Attempts to enhance the adhesion of coatings to polyethylene by flame treatment
of the polyethylene substrate have given variable results in general and
moderate improvements in adhesion at best.

7.7.2. Fusion bonded epoxy-polypropylene

• Three layer fusion bonded epoxy-polypropylene coatings are the only pipeline
coatings with an established operating temperature limit in excess of 90°C
(194°F), and their use is confined mainly to preventing external corrosion of
pipelines operating between 90 and 125°C (194 and 257°F).
• To date, five different field joint coating systems have been used on line pipe
coated in the factory with three layer fusion bonded epoxy-polypropylene. All of
these systems incorporate the application of FBE as the first coating layer in an
identical manner to that described in clause 7.4, followed by a flock sprayed
layer of polypropylene copolymer adhesive within the gel time of the FBE to
ensure adequate cross linking.
• Good interlayer adhesion is dependant upon a chemical reaction between the
fusion bonded epoxy and the polypropylene co-polymer adhesive. This can only
take place when the fusion bonded epoxy is in a liquid state but has not had time
to cure. This period is normally of the order of 20 to 40 seconds following
application of the FBE.

Page 11 of 17
15 February 2007 GP 06-40
Guidance on Practice for Pipeline Coating Selection

• The principle difference between each of the field joint coating types is the
manner in which the outer layer(s) of polypropylene/ polypropylene copolymer
is(are) applied. There are six different types as follows:
- Sintered polypropylene copolymer.
- Co-extruded polypropylene sheet plus polypropylene welding.
- Flame sprayed polypropylene copolymer.
- Injection moulded polypropylene.
- Co-extruded polypropylene tape.
- Polypropylene heat shrink sleeve.
• The sintered polypropylene copolymer field joint coating application method
involves the build up of the copolymer coating by flock spraying as a dry
powder, the residual heat in the pipe from the fusion bonded epoxy application
process being used to melt and coalesce the copolymer particles. As polyolefins
have a low thermal conductivity, the thickness that can be achieved is limited to
less than 1 mm (0,04 in) with the added risk that the final copolymer layer may
be porous, unless supplementary heating is applied externally. Without the
supplementary external heating, this type of coating is likely to be extremely
poor quality by comparison with the alternatives available and described below.
• The co-extruded polypropylene sheet method gives a sound field joint coating
with properties equivalent to that of the line pipe coating, but requires precise
cutting of the sheet to fit the field joint area, preheating of the sheet, and then
preparation and sealing of the longitudinal and circumferential edges of the
sheet to the line pipe coating by extrusion welding using a polypropylene
consumable. This field joint coating system is, therefore, time consuming to
apply correctly.
• Of the five systems described, flame spraying is perhaps the most versatile as it
can also be used to coat fittings and pre-formed bends at a wide range of
coating thicknesses. The polypropylene co-polymer powder is propelled under
gas pressure through a flame. The individual particles and the coated surface
are heated by the flame enabling a fully fused coating to be produced. The
application technique requires a high degree of skill in order to apply the
coating to a uniform thickness without slumping.
• Injection moulding of polypropylene at field joints has been used only rarely and
exclusively on offshore pipelines. It requires bulky and sophisticated equipment
and has a reputation for being more costly compared to the alternative systems
available. Nevertheless, it gives an extremely robust field joint coating almost
equal in properties to the line pipe coating.
• Polypropylene tape wrapping is the most recent development and may be
regarded as an extension of the co-extruded sheet method. Being of a single
material and more flexible than the sheet, it is applied to the field joint as a
spiral wrap in an analogous way to cold applied tape, rather than as a single
sheet. Good adhesion both between successive spirals, to the pipe, and the line
pipe coating requires preheating of the tape and the substrate as the tape is
applied, followed by post heating.

Page 12 of 17
15 February 2007 GP 06-40
Guidance on Practice for Pipeline Coating Selection

Table 1 - Comparison of line pipe coating properties

C. D. Resistance
Adhesion Strength –1,5 V. v. SCE Recommended
Total Relative Resistance to Mechanical Damage (mm (in) max.)
(1-Lowest Resistance) [3] Maximum
Coating
Generic Type 23°C 65°C Operating
Thickness Peel
Temp Pull off (73°F) (149°F) Temperature
(µm (mil)) (N/mm
(°C (°F)) (MPa (psi)) Temp Indentation/ (°C (°F))
(lb/in)) Impact * Abrasion § 28 days 48 hrs
°C (°F) Penetration #
4 000-6 000
Asphalt Enamel 25 (77) 5 (29) N/A 20 (68) - 1∞ - 10 (0,4) - 50 (122)
(160-240)
4 000-6 000 > 2,4
Coal Tar Enamel 25 (77) 5 (29) 20 (68) - 1∞ - 10 (0,4) - 65/80 (149/176) €
(160-240) (> 350)
Cold Applied Tape 3 000 (120) 22 (72) 2 (11) N/A 20 (68) 3 (56) ∞ 1∞ - 12 (0,5) - 40 (104)
350-600 > 21 20 (68) 1 (19) 220 (2) ♂
FBE Single Layer 25 (77) N/A 5 (0,2) 5 (0,2) 90 (194) †
(14-24) (> 3 000) 50 (122) 1 (19) 180 5
FBE Dual Layer 750-1 350 > 21 20 (68) 7 (131) 250 5
25 (77) N/A 5 (0,2) 5 (0,2) 90 (194) @
(Ruggedised) (30-54) (> 3 000) 50 (122) 7 (131) 180 12
2 Layer 1 000-2 000 20 (68) 14 (262) ♀ 10 ♀ 1♀
23 (73) 4 (23) NA - - 50 (122)
Polyethylene (40-80) 50 (122) 7 (131) ♀ 10 ♀ 1♀
20 (224)
23 (73)
[4], [5] 20 (68) 14 (262) 10 1
3 Layer FBE- HD 2 500-3 500 40 (104) 15 (86) N/A 5 (0,2) 5 (0,2) 75 (167)
Polyethylene (100-140)
60 (140) 8 (46)
50 (122) 7 (131) 10 1
80 (176) 5 (29)
23 (73) 20 (114) 20 (68) 16 (299) ∞ 20 ∞ -
3 Layer FBE- 2 500-3 500 70 (158) 15 (86) 50 (122) 15 (281) ∞ 13 ∞ -
N/A 5 (0,2) 5 (0,2) 125 (257)
Polypropylene (100-140) 90 (194) 8 (46) 110 (230) - 8 -
125 (257) 2 (22) 125 (257) - 4 -
* Impact rankings based upon the energy required to produce a holiday in J/mm (ft-lb/in) of coating thickness ∞ Figures relative to 2 Layer Polyethylene Extrapolated from Privately
# Indentation rankings compares the resistance to penetration under constant load Communicated Data
§ Abrasion ranking compares depth to which the coating is penetrated for a fixed load and No. of cycles € Upper temperature limit for coal tar enamel depends upon enamel grade.
Higher temperatures (< 100°C (< 212°F)) possible beneath concrete weight
† Depends upon the specific FBE product used coat.
♀ Performance assumed to be the same as for three layer FBE-PE @ Upper temperature limit for dual layer FBEs needs to be established from
♂ Single layer FBE suffered through film penetration independent test data.

Page 13 of 17
 15 February 2007 GP 06-40
Guidance on Practice for Pipeline Coating Selection

Table 2 - Field joint coating options

Line Pipe Coating Field Joint Coatings Comments

Hot Coal Tar or Asphalt Enamel Wrap HSE concerns mitigate against the use of hot enamel wrap in the field.
Cold Applied Tape Wrap Limited resistance to soil stressing particularly at above ambient temperatures. †
Coal Tar or Asphalt Liquid Applied Coal Tar Epoxy or Coal tar Fully automated coating application available. Superior adhesion to steel, mechanical
Enamel Urethane properties less affected by temperature
Radiation Cross Linked PE Heat Shrink Sleeves Inconsistent adhesion quality due to method of heat input. Limited resistance to soil
(PE HSS) stressing at above ambient temperatures.*
Cold Applied Tape Wrap Cold Applied PE/PVC Tape Wrap See above †
Single or Dual Layer Fusion Bonded Epoxy
Adhesion strength of FBE and liquid applied coatings less affected by temperature than PE
Single & Dual Layer Liquid Applied Epoxy or Urethane.
HSS. FBE & liquid applied coatings have superior mechanical damage resistance at above
Fusion Bonded Epoxy
Radiation Cross Linked PE Heat Shrink Sleeve ambient temperatures compared to PE HSS.
(PE HSS) with Epoxy Primer
Radiation Cross Linked PE Heat Shrink Sleeves
(PE HSS) with Epoxy Primer Limited adhesion between primer and PE in the line pipe coating restricts the field joint
Two layer Polyethylene
coating options.
Cold Applied PE/PVC Tape
Liquid Applied Epoxy, Urethane, or Coal Tar Superior adhesion to steel, mechanical Limited adhesion of all of the field joint coatings
Three Layer FBE- Urethane. properties less affected by temperature to PE. Requires careful selection of blast
Polyethylene Radiation Cross Linked PE Heat Shrink Sleeves See comments above * abrasives to try to optimize the coating
Cold Applied Tape Wrap See comments above † adhesion at the overlap.

FBE-Sintered Polypropylene Co-Polymer Limited thickness is achievable (< 1 mm (0,04 in)) & coating porosity a significant risk
Good field joint-line pipe coating continuity achievable. Slow manual PP application
FBE-Flame Sprayed Polypropylene Co-Polymer
process, although automation possible. Risk of the PP coating slumping during application.
Good field joint-line pipe coating continuity achievable. Fully automated process capable of
FBE-Tape Wrapped Polypropylene
consistent field joint coating quality.
Three Layer FBE- Good field joint-line pipe coating continuity achievable. Semi-automated process, manual
Polypropylene FBE-Cigarette Wrapped Polypropylene
PP sleeve application
Good field joint-line pipe coating continuity achievable. Closest to factory application
FBE-Injection Moulded Polypropylene quality. Level of equipment sophistication required makes this coating system difficult to
justify for onshore pipelines.
Radiation Cross Linked PP Heat Shrink Sleeve Coating adhesion values of the same order of magnitude as for FBE-PP field joint coatings
(PP HSS) with Epoxy Primer achievable, providing that induction heating used to provide uniform pipe pre-heat.

Page 14 of 17
15 February 2007 GP 06-40
Guidance on Practice for Pipeline Coating Selection

Table 3 - Comparison of field joint coating properties

C. D. Resistance
Relative Resistance to Mechanical Damage
Total Adhesion Strength –1,5 V. v. SCE Max
(1-Lowest Resistance) [6], [7], [8], [9]
Coating (mm (in) max.) Service
Generic Type
Thickness Peel Pull off 23°C 65°C Temp.
(µm (mil)) Temp Temp (73°F) (149°F) (°C)
(N/mm (MPa Impact Indent # Penetration ¥ Abrasion § Gouging §
(°C (°F)) (°C (°F))
(lb/in)) (psi)) 28 d 48 hr
350-600 > 21 20 (68) 8 (150) - 223 4 - 90
FBE Mono Layer 25 (77) N/A 5 (0,2) 5 (0,2)
(14-24) (> 3 000) 50 (122) 10 (187) 50 4 - (194) †
0 (32) 6 (112) - 400 - -
FBE Dual Layer 750-1 350 > 21 20 (68) 10 (187) - 250 8 - 90
25 (77) N/A 5 (0,2) 5 (0,2)
(Ruggedised) (30-54) (> 3 000) 50 (122) 12 (225) - 100 5 - (194) @
80 (176) 10 (187) - 33 - -
0 (32) 4 (75) 177 201 - 201
750-1 000 > 21 20 (68) 6 (112) 233 107 7 107 90
Liquid Applied Epoxy 23 (73) N/A 5 (0,2) 5 (0,2)
(30-40) (> 3 000) 50 (122) 10 (187) 35 46 3 46 (194)
80 (176) 8 (150) 7 9 - 9
0 (32) 10 (187) 75 151 - 151
Liquid Applied 750-1 000 > 17 20 (68) 12 (225) 17 46 - 46 80
23 (73) N/A 5 (0,2) 5 (0,2)
Polyurethane (30-40) (> 2 500) 50 (122) 12 (225) 9 7 - 7 (176)
80 (176) 10 (187) 7 7 - 7
0 (32) 6 (112) 61 64 - 64
Liquid Applied Coal 750-1 000 > 10 20 (68) 8 (150) 18 9 - 9 65
23 (73) N/A 5 (0,2) 5 (0,2)
tar Urethane (30-40) (> 1 500) 50 (122) 8 (150) 15 4 - 4 (149)
80 (176) 4 (75) 13 3 - 3
Cold Applied PE/PVC 2 500-3 000 20 (68) 1 (19) 11 - - - 40
22 (72) 2 (11) N/A 12 (0,5) -
Tape (100-120) 50 (122) - - - - - (104)
Heat Shrink Sleeve- 20 (68) - - - - -
1 500-2 500 40
Radiation X Linked PE 23 (73) 1,5 (9) N/A 8 (0,3) 8 (0,3)
(60-100) 50 (122) - - - - - (104)
Mastic
0 (32) 8 (150) 71 6 - 6
Heat Shrink Sleeve-
Radiation X Linked PE 1 500-2 500 20 (68) 8 (150) 62 3 1 3 40
23 (73) 3 (17) N/A 8 (0,3) 8 (0,3)
Adhesive/ Epoxy (60-100) 50 (122) 4 (75) 11 1 1 1 (104)
Primer
80 (176) 2 (37) 1 1 - 1

Page 15 of 17
15 February 2007 GP 06-40
Guidance on Practice for Pipeline Coating Selection

C. D. Resistance
Relative Resistance to Mechanical Damage
Total Adhesion Strength –1,5 V. v. SCE Max
(1-Lowest Resistance) [6], [7], [8], [9]
Coating (mm (in) max.) Service
Generic Type
Thickness Peel Pull off 23°C 65°C Temp.
(µm (mil)) Temp Temp (73°F) (149°F) (°C)
(N/mm (MPa Impact Indent # Penetration ¥ Abrasion § Gouging §
(°C (°F)) (°C (°F))
(lb/in)) (psi)) 28 d 48 hr
Heat Shrink Sleeve- 70 (158) 4 (23) 23 (73) 8 (150) 62 - - -
2 500-3 000 90
Radiation X Linked N/A 5 (0,2) -
(100-120) 110 (230) 4 (23) 110 (230) 8 (150) 10 - - - (194)
PP/Epoxy Primer
70 (158) 15 (86) 0 (32) - - - - -
3 Layer FBE- 90 (194) 6 (34) 50 (122) - 18 - - -
3 000-4 000 125
Polypropylene N/A 5 (0,2) 5 (0,2)
(120-160) 110 (230) 2 (11) 90 (194) 3 (56) 4 - - - (257)
(Flame Spray/ Tape)
121 (250) 4 (23) 121 (250) - - - - -
* Impact rankings based upon the minimum energy required in J/mm (ft-lb/in) of coating thickness § Abrasion and gouging ranking compares depth to which the coating is penetrated for a
to produce a holiday fixed load and fixed No of cycles
# Indentation rankings compare the resistance to penetration under constant blunt load in @ Upper temperature limit for dual layer FBEs needs to be established from independent
accordance with DIN 30670 & 30678 test data.
¥ Indentation rankings compare the resistance to penetration under constant angular load † Depends upon the specific FBE product used
representative of typical onshore pipeline backfill

Page 16 of 17
 Bibliography

[1] ASTM G14 Standard Test Method for Impact Resistance of Pipeline Coatings (Falling Weight Test).

[2] ASTM G17 Standard Test Method for Penetration Resistance of Pipeline Coatings (Blunt Rod).

[3] Pipeline Research Council “Coating and Backfill Optimisation Study” May 2004
th
[4] M. Alexander. 13 International Conference on Pipeline Protection, Edinburgh, 1999 “Three Layer
Epoxy/Polyethylene Side Extruded Coatings for Pipe for High Temperature Application”

[5] D. Nozahic & L. Leiden 13th International Conference on Pipeline Protection, Edinburgh, 1999
“Advanced-Three Layer HDPE System with Improved Short and Long Term Properties”

[6] Advantica Report No R5777 “Pipeline Coatings/Trench Backfill System Optimisation Study-Phase 2
Field Joint Coatings” March 2001

[7] R. Espiner, I. Thompson, J. Barnett, “Optimization of Pipeline Coating and Backfill Selection” Paper
03046, NACE 2003

[8] Advantica Report No R4302 “Pipeline Coatings/Trench Backfill System Optimisation Study-Small
Scale Laboratory Test Programme” January 2003

[9] Advantica Report No R5426 “BP Pipeline Field Joint Coating Study: Support to Shah Deniz Export
Project” July 2002